Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad34; (1950)IIMLJ686
ORDERGovinda Menon and Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, JJ.1. We think that the point of law involved in this case on which there is a conflict of opinion should be decided by a Full Bench. The decision of Leach C. J. and Chandrasekhara Aiyar J. in Nallappa Goundan v. Chinnammal, A. I. R.1942 Mad. 19 : 43 Cr. L. J. 44l runs couI. L. R. 1942 Mad. 158 nter to four earlier decisions, Shanmugasundaram Pillai v. Manicka Mudaliar, 1939 M. W. N. 192 : A. I. R. 1939 Mad. 368 : 40 Cr. L. J. 542 and Ammanna Sastri v. Sitaramayya, 1939 M. W. N. 336 and Gurubasayya v. Siddalingappa, 1940 M. W. N. 392 : A. I. R. 1940 Mad. 677 : 41 Cr. L. J. 906 and Ramaswami Konar v. Nachiar Ammal, 1940 M.W.N. 867. Recently one of us considered the point in Cri. R. C. No. 1524 of 1949 and distinguished the case in Nallappa Goundan v. Chinnammal, I. L. R. 1942 Mad. 158 : A. I. R. 1942 Mad. 19 : 43 Cr. L. J. 441. The same case was considered in Chinnayya Goundan v. Emperor, 1948 M. W. N. 357 : A. I. R. 1948 Mad. 474 : 49 Cr. L....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad676; (1951)IMLJ97
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. These five appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arise out of orders passed in the course of an insolvency petition I. P. No. 3 of 1949 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Nellore. One China Kondiah was adjudicated an insolvent in I. P. No. 3 of 1949 on 12th October 1949 on a creditors' petition. The Official Receiver of Nellore filed I. A. No. 208 of 1950 in I. P. No. 3 of 1949 for a declaration that an assignment of the insolvent's rights under a timber contract made by him in, favour of his brothers-in-law was collusive, nominal and devoid of consideration and that the insolvent retained the benefit of the said contract. He also applied for an order setting aside the assignment and for being put in possession of the timber which was the subject matter of the contract. The Official Receiver also filed another application I. A. No. 209 of 1950 for taking possession of logs of timber' alleged to have been cut and transported by the assigne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad756; (1951)IMLJ515
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. 1. This second appeal raises a very interesting point of law, namely, whether a judgment-debtor husband in a maintenance decree, after having been committed to a civil prison for six months, in an execution petn. for recovering the moveables & costs, & been there for the entire period prescribed in Section 58(1), C. P. C., & in another execution for recovering the maintenance which had accrued by then, be again sent to the civil prison for another period of six months, & so on & so forth, for recurring periods of six months for recurring maintenance amounts for later periods. The trial Ct. held that he can be so sent if he, having means to pay the maintenance amount, refuses to pay, but confessed that the matter was not free from doubt, & gave the judgment-debtor some time to pay up before ordering his arrest again. On appeal, by the judgment-debtor, the Dist. J. of Madura held that a maintenance decree cannot be held to be a different decree in respect of each m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad758
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J. 1. The points that arise in this civil revision petn. are ; (1) That the pauper application has not been pcoperly presented ; & (2) that there is no averment in the proposed plaint that the petnr. was willing & ready to tender the money to re-purchase the property. Both the pointa have been considered by the learned Subordinate Judge & overlooking the objections he has granted leave to the pauper to present his petn. in in forma pauperis & directed that the petn. should be registered as a suit.2. Counsel for the petnr. before me contends that the learned Subordinate Judge was not right in having overlooked the mandatory provisions of Order 33, Rule 3, C. P. C., which says that notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the appln. shall be presented to the Ct. by the appct. in person, unless he is exempted from appearing in Ct., in which case the appln. may ba presented by an authorised agent who can answer all material questions relating to the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad606; (1951)IMLJ21
Subba Rao, J. 1. The question in this second appeal turns on the construction to be put upon Section 3 (iii-a) of Madras Act IV [4] of 1938. 2. Some material facts may be briefly stated. Defendants 1 and 2 for themselves and defendant 1 as guardian of defendants 3 and 4, executed a mortgage deed dated 29-11-1940 in favour of the plaintiff. The principal sum was Rs. 1000. It was stipulated therein that the loan should be discharged by delivery of eight annual instalments of 35 bags of paddy each, and, in default, each of the instalments should carry interest at 12 per cent. per annum. The defendants paid four instalments. As default was made in regard to the 5th and 6th instalments, the mortgagee filed O. S. No. 267 of 1946 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tenali, for recovery of the produce payable to him valuing the same at Rs. 11 per bag. Though under the terms of the document, he was entitled to claim interest at 12 per cent. per annum, he was content with claiming 61/4 per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad667; (1951)IMLJ83
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is art application to quash the order of the District Judge, West Tanjore, holding that the petitioner has ceased to hold his office as a member of the Panchayat Board of Tiruvadi under Section 56 (1) (h), Madras Local Boards Act, that is to say, on the ground that he had failed to attend the meetings of the Board for a period of three consecutive months. The petitioner's counsel first and most pressed upon us a ground which does not appear to have been taken in the lower Court, namely, that though he did absent himself from the ordinary meetings of the Local Board for a period of three consecutive months, he was present during those months at some of its urgent meetings and therefore it could not be said that he had absented himself from the meetings of the Board for three consecutive months. This contention cannot prevail in view of the explanation to Section 56 (1) (h) which runs as follows :'Explanation : A meeting held under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of Schedu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad685; (1950)2MLJ766
Somasundaram, J.1. The applt in this case was accused 1 in sessions case No. 18 of 1949 on the file of the Ct of Session, Anantapur. He & another were tried for an offence under Section 307 I. P. C. Accused 2 was acquitted, but the applt alone was convicted & was sentenced to R. I. for two years & to pay a fine of Rs. 100. 2. This appeal has to be allowed on a question of law. The occurrence is said to have -taken place at about 11 p.m. on 1-2-1949. Information was given at about 1 a.m. on 2-2-1949. It was recorded by P. W. 7, who was the station writer of the police station, where the information was given. He said in his evidence that he investigated into the case & recorded statements of witnesses. He examined P. W. 1 & he also examined P. Ws. 3 to 6 & recorded their statements. These statements constitute statements under Section 162, Cr. P. C. The learned Ses. J. finds in para 6 of his judgment that these statements were not made available to the accused for cross-examination; but...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad752; (1951)IMLJ188
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J. 1. The pltf. is the petnr. before me. He engaged the defts, to carry a certain quantity of tiles for him from Beypore to Marmagoa & paid them what was called an ' advance ' of Rs. 100 (RS. one hundred only). The Ct. below has found that the pltf. wa9 not ready with the tiles & that after waiting a reasonable time the defts. went away with their boats. It also found that the defts, were entitled to appropriate the advance towards the expense they had incurred in waiting from 27-10-47 to 2-11-1947 for the tiles. 2. Mr. Nambisan, the learned advocate for the petnr., contended that the view of the Ct. below was wrong & cites in support of his argument the decision of the Privy Council in Muralidhar Chatterji v. International Film, Co., Ltd. , Whether that decision would apply or not would depend upon the question whether the payment of Rs. 100 (RS. one hundred only) in this case was earnest money or only payment on account. If it was really only payment on accoun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1952Mad608; (1951)IMLJ453
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs which he seeks in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Under Section 19 of the Mad-ras District Municipalities Act, subject to the provisions of the Act the Municipal Administration shall vest in the Council. Section 23 provides for the council constituting committees for the purpose of exercising such powers, discharging such duties or performing such functions as it may delegate to them. , It may also appoint individual councillors, or committees, to enquire into and report or advise on any matters which it may refer to them. Under Section 25, the Council is given power to make rules in regard 'inter alia' to the constitution and procedure of committees and the delegation of its powers, duties or functions to such committees. What the Municipal Council in this case did was to constitute committees and to delegate some of its powers and functions to these committees. This delegation was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1953Mad777; (1952)2MLJ385
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This application is for scaling down the mortgage decree debt in C. Section No. 42 of 1933, and the applicants are some of the judgment debtors. Preliminary decree in the above suit was passed on 31-7-1934, and the final decree was passed on 12-2-1935. There was a balance of Rs. 6,759-5-0 claimed under the decree. The mortgage property was brought to sale and the proclamation was settled on 25-4-1950. The sale has been stayed by my order in view of this application. The judgment-debtors took out application No. 1147 of 1938 under Section 19 of Act 4 of 1938 and an order was made on 4-9-1939 scaling down the debt. An appeal was preferred, O. S. A. No. 57 of 1940 by one of the judgment-debtors against the order scaling down the debt and on 28-2-1941, the appellate Court found on scaling down the debt that a sum of Rs. 3,391-3-0 was due on 1-10-1937 and further ordered the judgment-debtors to pay interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from 1-10-1937 with p...
Tag this Judgment!